STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BF 130058-RO
:
BRISBANE/SYDNEY LEASING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
COMPANIES, DOCKET NO.: QS 000272-OM
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING, IN PART, PETITION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On May 29, 1987, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on May 15, 1987 by a District
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as various
apartments, 98-30/98-32 57th Avenue, Corona, New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by the petition for administrative review.
The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator properly
determined the owner's application for a rent increase based upon a
claimed major capital improvement (MCI).
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, increased the
rents of all rent-stabilized apartments by .21 of 1% of the rent paid as
of October 1, 1984 (plus temporary arrears of .44 of 1% of the rent paid
as of said date), based upon the installation of three new oil burners
(which services two buildings of over 470 apartments) at a substantiated
allowable cost of $23,503.00. The effective date of the rent increase was
determined to be March 1, 1985. It was noted in the order that the
installation of a "fence" for $510.00 was disallowed as this installation
did not qualify as a major capital improvement and $20,703.55 was not
approved as an allowable cost because signatures of the vendors had not
been provided where required on the RA-79 form (owner's application for
rent increase based on the installation of an MCI).
In this petition the owner, by its agent, alleges, in substance, it
properly complied with the rent agency's requirements to completely
substantiate the total costs incurred for the purchase of the oil burners
and the fence. Regarding the lack of the contractor/vendor signatures on
the RA-79 application form, the owner asserts, in substance, that it
complied with rent agency instructions by providing affidavits
identifying the contractor/vendor, the service they provided, at what cost
and why the contractor/vendor's signature was not obtained. Finally, the
owner notes that it was able to install the oil burner at half the 'going'
price which fact should be accounted for in assessing the allowable MCI
costs. The owner encloses a copy of the directions it received from the
rent agency regarding the above-mentioned affidavits being acceptable in
lieu of contractor/vendor signatures.
DOCKET NUMBER: BF 130058-RO
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal should be
granted in part.
The Commissioner notes that the rent agency provides an instruction sheet
along with the RA-79 application form (owner's application for rent
increase based on major capital improvements). Regarding
contractor/vendor signatures, the instructions indicate that where the
contractor/vendor refuses or is unable to sign the certification, the
owner may instead submit an affidavit which must include the following:
identity of contractor/vendor, work done or materials supplied, cost and
reason why the contractor/vendor's signature was not obtained. The
affidavit must be signed, notarized and attached to the RA-79 Supplement
form.
The record in the instant case includes invoices, cancelled checks, and
management approvals for the purchase of three new oil burners at a
substantiated cost of $20,703.55 (which the record shows were installed by
a separate contractor) together with requisite governmental sign-offs for
the installation and operation of the new oil burners and copies of the
owner's affidavits identifying several contractor/vendors, the work done
or materials supplied and costs, along with an explanation as to why their
signatures were not included. These affidavits, as required, are signed
and notarized. While the Administrator properly found the fence not to
constitute an MCI (accord CE 430107-RO), the Commissioner is of the
opinion that a further increase is warranted for the substantiated cost of
the burners(3); and that the Administrator's order should be modified by
providing for a further rent increase of .18 of 1% of the rent paid on the
October 1, 1984 rent roll date resulting in a total increase of .39 of 1%
of the October 1, 1984 rent based on a total allowed cost of $44,206.55
plus additional temporary arrears of 1.29% to cover the period between
the effective date of the Administrator's order (March 1, 1985) and the
date of issuance of this order of the Commissioner.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is granted in part,
that the order of the Rent Administrator's be, and the same hereby is
modified as herein above indicated, and that as so modified said order be,
and the same hereby is affirmed, and it is further
ORDERED, that the tenants may pay any arrears in rent resulting from this
order in twelve equal monthly installments.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
